Mt. Kilimanjaro is a bad example of a point well taken

Mt. Kilimanjaro is a bad example of a point well taken

University of Washington climate scientist Philip W. Mote, co-author with Georg Kaser of an article in the July/August issue of American Scientist magazine, said most scientists who study Kilimanjaro's glaciers have long been uneasy with the volcano's poster-child status.

Pictures of the peak, which has lost 90% of its snow and ice, were featured in Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth.” Greenpeace activists once held a satellite news conference on the summit during an international climate conference.

Kilimanjaro has seen its glaciers decline steadily for well over a century, Mote said, due to lack of snowfall and sublimation, the same process that causes freezer burn by sucking moisture out of leftovers.

“Kilimanjaro is a grossly overused mis-example of the effects of climate change,” said Mote, who doesn’t want skeptics to use his and Kaser’s article to debunk broader climate-change trends.

Previous Comments

Just another example of Gore’s bad science and your ability to spin incompetence into positive proof of your position.
The little things, like Gore’s misrepresentation of Kilimanjaro and your own Ross Gelbspan thinking that Autrailia’s national bird is the ostrich, that show that proof of your thesis is based on poor choices.

“nearly every other glacier around the globe.” Good thing you said “nearly” since many, like PioXI and San Rafael are growing. Too bad there guys. more bad science.
And gosh, retreating glaciers in Europe are exposing Neolithic sites where humans hunted, mined ore and camped. At one mine site, tools were piled up, indicating that the miners expected to return after the next spring thaw which never happened. Must have been there before the last ice age I guess.

Big deal. You’ve got a couple glaciers which are growing. This is actually expected given that precipitation over certain areas is increasing due to increased evaporation due to warmer temperatures. Increased precipitation means more snow in some alpine areas, meaning growing glaciers.

“Big deal. You’ve got a couple glaciers which are growing. This is actually expected given that precipitation over certain areas is increasing due to increased evaporation due to warmer temperatures. Increased precipitation means more snow in some alpine areas, meaning growing glaciers.”
And some glaciers will be shrinking for the opposite reasons - reduced precip in some alpine areas. In fact precipitation patterns have far more to do with glacier growth and decay than small scale temperature changes.
This is a far more complex subject than it’s made out to be.

However, large scale atmospheric temperature changes due to AGW are changing large scale precipitation patterns, such as the ITCZ (Intertropical Convergence Zone), SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone), etc.

Also, ENSO is likely becoming more irregular. It is thought that El Ninos will become more permanent fixtures on the Equatorial Pacific which spells trouble for the Indian Subcontinent’s vital monsoon season. As well, the west coast of South America will likely see more precipitation as a result of weakening trade winds and warmer, moister air flowing eastward over the Andes during strong El Ninos.

JEV2000 said: “And gosh, retreating glaciers in Europe are exposing Neolithic sites where humans hunted, mined ore and camped. At one mine site, tools were piled up, indicating that the miners expected to return after the next spring thaw which never happened”.

I think this is absolutely fine. Shows the science is working and getting out without fear nor favour.
So this example puts down any assertions of censorship in the climate science.
The authors do point out however that there is very good AGW science to correlate with temperate glaciers melting.
Al Gore is NOT the definitive source on matters AGW and has some things not well positioned. His sea level rise aspects for example are well outside the IPCC advice (although he didn’t exactly say “when” his level of melting may have occurred).
However I think that unlike the contrarian camp you guys need to play the game with a very straight bat and acknowledge issues that change or don’t go the “AGW way”.
Your credibility will be much higher as a result.
For example you will also remember that Realclimate was not sold on the data that the thermohaline is slowing. It did turn out to be incorrect and erroneous data analysis.
Other example is hesitancy to claim the mid-troposheric warming over Antarctia is definitely AGW.
Guys play a very precise and tough game against your scumbag opponents. Don’t be too shrill if things don’t always fall into line and don’t hide from it.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.